WikiLeaks punks The New York Times with op-ed hoax Early on Sunday, columnists Nick Bilton and Bill Keller of The New York Times both reposted Twitter links to an essay by Keller on the subject of WikiLeaks. There was just one problem: The linked essay wasn't actually Keller's, but an elaborate hoax designed to discredit both him and the newspaper. WikiLeaks itself has since …
Actually there's something that has got me thinking. How much of this ruse's success was due to the fake article putting up a convincing impersonation of Keller's writing style and opinions, and how much could be attributed to people's unwitting trust of online services?
Did people fall for it because the article really sounded like Keller's, or just because it was linked from a credible Twitter account? Had the naming of the fake Twitter account not been as clever, would people still have fallen for it? Had fake Keller written in l33tsp34k, praised the deep philosophical insights imparted by My Little Pony cartoons, or announced his conversion to Islam, would people still believe he wrote that? How far can you mangle an author's style before readers notice something's amiss?
The guy retweeted an article attributed to himself that he didn't write?
And he didn't notice anything wrong with it until a while later?
Some little detail such, as, oh I don't know... "Hey I don't remember ever writing that!"?
Are all NYT journalists as clever as Mr. Keller? Because that would explain a lot.
So wikileaks, which is supposed to be about spreading truth whether governments like it or not, is bragging about spreading falsehoods.
I don't care how dumb, corrupt, gullible or anything else the NY Times is. If your whole reason for being is to spread the truth then you do not spread lies. Ever. Not even to expose the NY Times.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
So wikileaks, which is supposed to be about spreading truth whether governments like it or not, is bragging about spreading falsehoods.
I don't care how dumb, corrupt, gullible or anything else the NY Times is. If your whole reason for being is to spread the truth then you do not spread lies. Ever. Not even to expose the NY Times.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. …. Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 30th July 2012 22:17 GMT
Spreading the truth about the lies and hyprocisies and conspiring shenanigans of ponzi fake democratic representative governments, which would lead you …… with media manipulation of messages and the distribution of and/or withholding of fiat currencies and electronically transmitted instant credit, for later consideration, if needs be, of its rebranding as crippling debt to be impossibly repaid, ……. as easily as blind dumb sheep are led to the abattoir, is surely what Wikileaks is all about, Anonymous Coward.
And "I don't care how dumb, corrupt, gullible or anything else the NY Times is." is the problem with stupid Mankind which allows them to be led so easily by blunt tools [the intellectually challenged and bankrupt of move; and nobel new ideas] and fools gold [pretty good private, printed paper IOUs, promising to pay the bearer on demand, more of the same old magic ponzi wealth]
But what you can both be sure and assured of, is that your not caring about how dumb, corrupt, gullible or anything else the media is, is a fabulous boon and exactly what is expected of y'all by such a perverse and corrupt system of primitive human control…… Pathetic Man Management.
It, however, is no longer in all powerful control whenever SMARTR IT and Clouds are. And please realise that to doubt it with all of your might is to impossibly strengthen and reinforce it beyond the comprehension you would need to address and aid it and prevent SMARTR IT and Clouds doing exactly as they and/or you would wish.
And that aint no spoof, El Reg .... that is the Real McCoy and Surreal NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive AIdDeal .......... and Alien Contract and Anonymous Compact in a Devil of a Heavenly AIMission .... Right WikidD.
I Kid U Not, for it is easily tested with engagement and open dialogue, is it not? Which might make you wonder why you are not hearing of your governments' engagements and views on the matter and the dark matters and sinister dealings that it raises and exposes, which might be the very answer to the question just asked there/here?
The following little post could have been crafted with you especially in mind, AC. And sadly, are you not alone in the madness that surrounds you. Oh, and be sure to read the article on the webpage hyperlinked, as it highlights quite clearly what the retards in the Senate Intelligence Committee are up to.
amanfromMars Says: …. on Anti-Leak Measures in Senate Bill Target Press, Public
July 31st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Keeping/Trying desperately to keep the general population ignorant and ill and/or misinformed, allows for rampant personalised abuse of office for private profit at the expense of the masses. It is a sure to fail sub-prime Great Ponzi Game plan which has cuckoos in feathered nests pretending to be golden eagles and magnificent birds of prey.
However, believe it or believe it not yet, Smarter Advanced IntelAIgent Systems rule the Future and they freely along with IT and InterNetworking Media Sharing Novel Information which Sublimely Edutains, pay no attention to such damn fool idiotic games for the severely intellectually challenged and bankrupt of new virtually real ideas.
Play the ball, AC, not the man, there's a good chap.
@AC 21:29 Are you giving out medical advice on the net? Dodgy at the very least I'd think? Mind you - is telling somebody to lay off the juice cocktail stuff medical advice as well? Don't worry about amanfromMars - every time you do - just pretend it's an advanced AI bot (maybe even in a jar).
I don't judge groups by which "side" they're on, I judge them by the ethics and intelligence behind their actions. Using phishing techniques to impersonate people and create fake points of view for them - reprehensible. I actually believe that it is good to support whistleblowers on illegal and immoral behaviour and that society needs such a role. But my opinion for Wikileaks is very, very low right now.
I'd say Wikileaks was successful on a couple of fronts here: they played an NYT columnist for a fool, which never hurts; and they woke at least a couple Reg readers (judging from the comments) up to the fact that Wikileaks is not a bastion of goodness and purity. I don't know why it took this long, but good job nonetheless.
I'm all for publishing material which governments or other organizations are hiding because it's embarrassing or politically dangerous, and I think the "security" excuse for keeping secrets is vastly overapplied. I can't think of a case where I wish Wikileaks hadn't leaked something, and I give them credit for doing so. But they're not saints or ethical exemplars, and treating them as such is nearly as bad as treating them as villains and enemies of the state.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
